I asked that a thread regarding Korean "supremacy" be closed earlier because I knew what direction such a thread would take. The original poster of that thread did however raise an interesting point, which SDY6401 touched on when he issued the following statement after closing the thread:

Unless a white liberals(s) can demonstrate to me that "anti-racist" policies aren't anti-white, and that anti-racist policies haven't caused harm to white nations, is it unreasonable to consider the possibility that white liberals are possibly suffering from either some form of a mental illness or a mental disorder? I ask this because white liberals are the only people in the world who actively work against the best interests of their own people.

White liberals cannot function in a white society since they are losers and rather than improving themselves or accepting the fact they would rather see nonwhites burn white countries to the ground even if it means they will suffer too.

Look at Michael Moore, do you think that fat tub of larb could ever get a decent white girl or have white friends without a butt load of cash? No so he turns to liberalism 1) to make money and 2) attack the society that wouldn't accept his loser butt.

Then, would you agree that "anti-racism" itself is based on one of the biggest conspiracy theories of all time?

Actually, when you think about it, all of these Marxist concepts ("racism," "sexism," "homophobia") are all based on leftist interpretations on what they regard as "conspiracies" within people's minds.

And you still don't think that "anti-racists" are mentally ill?

I think we've allowed our Jimmy to dodge this issue long enough. It's pretty easy to get caught up in the fray by pointing out the endless flaws with anti-racism, but I think it's important that white liberals be made to answer the basic question of whether or not their policies are destructive. In order to answer that question, white liberals must demonstrate that they have not and do not work against the best interests of their own people, and that their policies have not proved harmful. If they can't demonstrate that, then at the very least they have to concede that their ideological beliefs are unhealthy and destructive, which I'll suggest is symptomatic of either some form of mental illness or a mental deficiency.

White liberals cannot function in a white society since they are losers and rather than improving themselves or accepting the fact they would rather see nonwhites burn white countries to the ground even if it means they will suffer too.

Look at Michael Moore, do you think that fat tub of larb could ever get a decent white girl or have white friends without a butt load of cash? No so he turns to liberalism 1) to make money and 2) attack the society that wouldn't accept his loser butt.

What I find interesting about people like Michael Moore and other liberal Hollywood types, is that they couldn't have amassed the level of wealth that they have under the socialist system that so many of them advocate. Go figure.

I don't think there is anything that isn't hypocritical about white "liberals." If they're not mentally ill and don't want to be considered as such, then at the very least they're obligated to justify their hypocrisy. If they're unable to justify their hypocrisy (and they can't), then they're in no place to complain about any labels that are applied to them by those of us who can make arguments that follow logical conclusions; those of us who they've been slandering for the past five decades as racists, fascists, hatemongers, bigots, and every other negative sounding buzzword that they have in their arsenal.

It is not a gross oversimplification.
It is a major factor.
Of course in a rational society it may be deemed a simplification, but in a society that has surrendered its cultural sovereignty to all comers it is a question that needs to be addressed.

If the boundaries of cultural norms are agreed upon.
You cannot accept one mans right to marry underage girls, just because he has a superstious belief that a messenger from god has OK'd it.
Let alone many.
(Before you dish out the Jerry Lewis anecdote, he was not following sharia.)

How noble of you.
Do you realise that this is an affront to islam, as it is held as holy writ that the prophet of islam recieved divine inspiration to have sexual relations with a child. (Aisha)
To doubt the genuiness of his claim is to be an infidel.

Do you see the point that is being laboured here?

Culture clash on a deep and irreconsilable issue.

Yes we all know the metaphors.
"I can tolearte having a cold, that does not mean I relish it".
Same with islam, I can tolerate islam in its own lands of heritage, that does not mean I want it in my lands.
I do not want to have to explain to my daughter why the scary figure in a black cowel is dressed like a witch.

More platitudes.
In a London square near Holborn, queers took over the park area.
Some nights residents complained that it sounded like howler monkies had colonised the park.
Parents could not stroll through the park with their children for fear of what they might come across.

Queers are not just innocent misunderstood perverts, many are exibitionists and enjoy shocking and offending straight society.

It is important, but I don't think most liberals would say it is the main element. Freedom is generally the most talked about word, or liberty, which has a similar meaning. Some would say rationalism, but thats quite hard to define, everyone thinks their thoughts are rational.

I don't know who Jerry Lewis is, but to be clear, I believe law should be secular, and religious people should be forced to live by these standards. Just because the Bible says you can stone gays to death, doesn't give Christians the rights to do it, likewise I do not advocate letting muslims break the age of consent law because of their religion. "It is my religion" should be no defence in a court of law.

I'm already an infidel, I don't believe in God. I'm just not one of these losers who takes great pleasure in this fact. And yes, like everyone else in the world I know Muhammed had a child bride, but I also know most muslims have no wish to marry children, and I would point out that attitudes to peadophillia those days were totally different. We didn't have an age of consent law for centuries after that, and when we did it was twelve. It isn't irreconsilable, it is simple. Muslims in Britain can't marry children, most don't want to, I haven't heard any protesting for their right to do this, no problem.

I don't know what images of witches you've seen, but just say to her "this women has a different culture, they dress like that, she's no threat". Or you could campaign against the burka- I personally believe in that freedom, but i'm not a fan of it at all. That's quite different to saying you want to kick out every muslim (does this include white muslims, like converts?), even if they are totally accepting of traditional British cultural standards.

If they are being a public nuisance the council should do something, sure. I go on nights out in Brighton, the gayest place in Britain, a lot, and the idea most gays are "exhibitionists" is a total myth. You rarely even see gay people kissing or holding hands on the streets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by somevietgirl

I believe that you must be delusional if you think that Islam and gay rights can co-exist peacefully in your multicultural fantasy.

The Prophet Mohammad himself would slit the throats of every single gay and lesbian personally.

They are working pretty well together in this country. We have nearly equal gay rights and quite a few muslims, and they don't seem to clash too much. That's the trouble, you are talking about multicultural fantasy, but actually already exists. It is reality.

It is a good job he isn't around then, and that his followers in Britain aren't doing that.

They are working pretty well together in this country. We have nearly equal gay rights and quite a few muslims, and they don't seem to clash too much. That's the trouble, you are talking about multicultural fantasy, but actually already exists. It is reality.

It is a good job he isn't around then, and that his followers in Britain aren't doing that.

Look at how gays get treated in the overwhelming majority of all Muslim countries.
They are fined, imprisoned, whipped or executed.
Violent anti-gay hate crimes are extremely common in Muslim countries. Black countries as well.
How is that not compelling evidence that Muslims hate homosexuals?
Most Muslim leaders believe homosexuals deserve to die.
The hatred of homosexuals in Islam is plainly obvious for all to see.
People don't leave their culture behind just because they've left their country.
There is no shortage of violent Muslims.
I don't believe you when you claim that gays and Muslims work well together.

Look at how gays get treated in the overwhelming majority of all Muslim countries.
They are fined, imprisoned, whipped or executed.
Violent anti-gay hate crimes are extremely common in Muslim countries. Black countries as well.
How is that not compelling evidence that Muslims hate homosexuals?
Most Muslim leaders believe homosexuals deserve to die.
The hatred of homosexuals in Islam is plainly obvious for all to see.
People don't leave their culture behind just because they've left their country.
There is no shortage of violent Muslims.
I don't believe you when you claim that gays and Muslims work well together.

Muslims make up 2% of Britain's population but 25% of gay hate crime perpetrators?

I so clearly wrote "in this country" and "in Britain", I made it so clear I was talking about Britain, I think you intentionally ignored that when bringing up muslim countries. Obviously I know the disgusting atrocities they commit in these countries.

A lot of muslims in Britain aren't immigrants, anyway.

I didn't claim "gays and muslims work well together". I said "they don't seem to clash too much". That is not the same thing at all. I wouldn't say "gays and muslims work well together" because that would be a stupid thing to say.

I get so sick of being misrepresented. I mean you have the quote of what I said, you bloody quoted it in your post.

I'm not saying multiculturalism is perfect, we are trying to hard to make things work, we've had a lot of improvement in some areas, some we continue to work on. But lets be fair here, we don't have large scale race riots, we don't have people butchered in their sleep. This is not the Balkans. We've had very high immigration lately, so we will have some problems, but we'll solve them in time.

I'm not saying multiculturalism is perfect, we are trying to hard to make things work, we've had a lot of improvement in some areas, some we continue to work on. But lets be fair here, we don't have large scale race riots, we don't have people butchered in their sleep. This is not the Balkans. We've had very high immigration lately, so we will have some problems, but we'll solve them in time.

I'm starting to think that you must not be very bright.

Quote:

"The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in theory and in practice." -Mikhail Gorbachev

If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you. But I will say that if you think multiculturalism is anything other than an abject failure for whites, you are living in fantasyland.

About "multi-culturalism" (code word for multi-racialism), you keep saying things s/a "we are trying to make it work..." or "see it's not so bad crime dropped, so it's sort of working..." if we keep at it, we can make it work..."

One question:

Why are you so committed and interesting in making this work? Why? Why do you find it desirable?

And are you equally willing to leave Europeans ALONE, and not do multi-culturalism where they are----- but instead, to IMPORT all other races into an Asian country, like China or Taiwan or whatever. Or to just try the experiment in Africa?

Are you interested in making this work in Nigeria, by replacing the Nigerians?

About "multi-culturalism" (code word for multi-racialism), you keep saying things s/a "we are trying to make it work..." or "see it's not so bad crime dropped, so it's sort of working..." if we keep at it, we can make it work..."

One question:
Why are you so committed and interesting in making this work? Why? Why do you find it desirable?

And are you equally willing to leave Europeans ALONE, and not do multi-culturalism where they are----- but instead, to IMPORT all other races into an Asian country, like China or Taiwan or whatever. Or to just try the experiment in Africa?

Are you interested in making this work in Nigeria, by replacing the Nigerians?

It is reality. Globalism has happened, it is in the past tense as far as i'm concerned. You can try and be a social luddite, but you will never stop progress, economics controls the world, and that means things have to move, things have to trade, people move.

I'm commited to making it work because it is the reality we live in, the reality we face. And I really think we can build great societies out of it. People on here are deliberately negative about everything. If you have that attitude to people, you will get a negative reaction, and so your attitude will be reinforced.

Yeah, it is a global thing, white immigration into China is getting bigger and bigger for instance. I'm not saying we should force diversity on anyone, i'm not suggesting shipping anyone anywhere just for the sake of it. People on here just cannot accept that I have the same rules for all races. They refuse to believe it. There's a very obvious reason why Nigeria doesn't have high immigration, i'd hope I don't need to spell it out for you.

There's a reason people don't follow your movement on masse anymore. You can try and convince yourselves its brainwashing, and big conspiracies, but the truth is a lot deeper than that. It is fundamentally flawed. The world has moved on from monoracial nations, but you have not.